Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-12-10 CITY OF PALM DESERT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION • MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 2002 **************************************************************************************************** I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 12:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Current Meeting Year to Date Present Absent Present Absent Ronald Gregory, Chairman X 18 4 Kristi Hanson X 20 2 Neil Lingle X 15 7 Richard O'Donnell X 18 4 Chris Van Vliet X 21 1 John Vuksic X 20 2 Ray Lopez X 19 1 Also Present: Phil Drell, Director, Community Development Steve Smith, Planning Manager Francisco Urbina, Associate Planner Tony Bagato, Planning Technician Donna Quaiver, Senior Office Assistant Diane Hollinger, Landscape Specialist III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 26, 2002 Commissioner O'Donnell moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle to approve the minutes of November 26, 2002. The motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Lopez abstaining. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. Mr. Smith stated that he would like to add the following items to the agenda by unanimous consent: 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES 1. Wells Fargo Bank at 77-950 Country Club Drive 2. Dr. Bruce Baumann sign proposal at 44-239 Monterey Avenue. 3. College View Estate #3 final approval on Shephard Lane 4. Trish Mohr / Jerry Beauvais approval of addition to guest house at 74-041 El Cortez Way. 5. Discussion about Freedom Park with Jeff Winklepleck. Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Hanson to add the above listed items to the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. A. Final Drawings 1. CASE NO.: TT 29468 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): STONEBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT, 3525 Lomita Blvd., Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90505 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of perimeter wall for a 259 lot residential project. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Country Club Drive and Tamarisk Row Drive ZONE: PR-3 Jeff Winklepleck stated that the gentlemen from Stonebridge Development are present to show the Commission samples of the pilasters as well as the plans for the entryway with signage and entry gates. Commissioner Gregory asked if there was any concern on Mr. Winklepleck's part about anything with this submittal where he felt that the ARC needed to see it. Mr. Winklepleck stated that he did not have any concerns. Commissioner Gregory asked about the proposed material for the trellis structure at the entry. The applicant stated that the trellis will be wood. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission if anybody had a problem with the use of wood in a prominent location. Wood tends to weather quickly in the desert over a period of time. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he would prefer to see steel frames. Commissioner Gregory stated that the steel will still be there in ten years. Commissioner Hanson stated that they won't get anything to grow on it. Commissioner Gregory asked the applicant if they want G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 AGENDA anything to grow on the trellis. The applicant stated that they are planning on having vines grow on the trellis. They usually use a stain on the trellis so it doesn't weather as quickly and there's not as much maintenance. Commissioner Hanson commented that the entry looks nice. Commissioner O'Donnell concurred. The applicant stated that the entry monument sign will be 8'6" in height with a water feature. The signage itself will be a maximum of 6' in height. There is landscaping behind it. Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for approval of perimeter wall by minute motion, subject to pilasters being approximately every second lot. Motion carried 7-0. Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval of entry and signage. Motion carried 7-0. 2. CASE NO.: MISC 02-25 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PALM DESERT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of signage for Fred Waring landscaped parkway. LOCATION: Fred Waring Drive ZONE: Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for approval by minute motion. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CASE NO.: C 02-05 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JOE BRANDT, 507 Tomahawk Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of remodel of exterior of building in conjunction with the City of Palm Desert's Facade Enhancement Program. LOCATION: 73-020 El Paseo (formerly known as Hooter's) ZONE: PC-3 Mr. Bagato stated that the applicant, Joe Brandt, made some revisions to the plans. The plans that received preliminary approval showed more slate the and less stone veneer. Some areas of plaster were added to try to break up some of the stone. The current plans show no slate tile and more stone veneer. The applicant also increased the gauge of the metal capping on the roof to 24 gauge. Commissioner Hanson stated that she likes the stone veneer better than the slate tile. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that the idea of having a heavier gauge metal on the capping is to prevent warping and oil canning. Mr. Brandt stated that he removed some areas of stone, at the commission's request. Commissioner Vuksic stated that they had asked that the applicant remove some of the stone so that it looked more like a structural element and also to increase the gauge of metal on the capping. Commissioner Hanson stated that the plans are fine the way they are. Commissioner Vuksic commented that the ARC is asking that the metal fascia has an adequate gauge. Mr. Smith stated that it was 26 gauge and is now 24 gauge. Mr. Brandt stated that he included the seam detail for the Commission to review. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the seams look fine but he was worried about the gauge. He suggested 16 or 18 gauge. Commissioner O'Donnell concurred. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Vuksic for approval subject to fascia being 18-gauge metal. Motion carried 7-0. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 4 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES 4. CASE NO.: C 02-03 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): PETER TAYTAY, ARCHITECTS ORANGE, 144 N. Orange Street, Orange, CA 92866 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Clarification of condition of approval regarding parapet details. LOCATION: 77-950 Country Club Drive, Desert Country Plaza, Wells Fargo Bank ZONE: P.C. Mr. Smith stated that the ARC gave the Wells Fargo Bank final approval on their commercial building in September 2002. One of the conditions of approval was providing parapet details. They have submitted a proposal and would like some direction from the Commission as to whether they're headed in the right direction. Commissioner Vuksic commented on the seams and stated that there is a cap flashing showing. He made some changes on the plans on detail #1 for the applicant to modify. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell for approval with the condition that the applicant modify detail #1, as shown on drawing. Motion carried 7-0. 5. CASE NO.: TT 30801 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): COLLEGE VIEW ESTATES #3, P.O. Box 696, Cathedral City, CA 92234 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of (5) tract homes. LOCATION: Shephard Lane ZONE: PR 5 Francisco Urbina stated that one condition of approval for this project was that bedroom #2 in a couple of the plans needed a logical place to put a bed. The developer stated that most people put the headboard up against the high window. Another suggestion was to eliminate a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 5 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES window or the direct access door to the bathroom. Mr. Urbina asked the Commission to clarify if this was a suggestion or an actual condition. Commissioner Hanson stated that this was a suggestion. Mr. Smith stated that this was a suggestion on an interior modification and this Commission typically doesn't get involved at that level. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner Van Vliet for approval. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CASE NO.: SA 02-220 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): BRUCE R. BAUMANN, DDS, 44-239 Monterey Ave, Palm Desert, CA 92260 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Final approval of monument sign for dental office. LOCATION: 44-239 Monterey Avenue ZONE: OP Mr. Smith stated that Mel Wachs, from Signs by Mel, is present to answer questions and present photographs to the Commission. The applicant is proposing a freestanding sign with an 18" base with a 3' sign on top. There is existing wall signage, as shown in the photograph. The proposed monument sign is a 3' x 6' internally illuminated sign cabinet which will be light blue stucco finish to match the wall in the background. The plexiglass will be black / white. The lettering is cut out routed face plexiglass. Behind the lettering is the black/white plexiglass. When the light shows through in the evening, it turns white but during the day when the sun hits the face of it the sign is black. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if Dr. Baumann does dentistry at night. He was wondering why the sign would have to be illuminated at night. Mr. Wachs stated that the doctor wants to use it for advertising and he feels that he's not getting enough exposure because during the day it's very difficult to see the wall sign. Commissioner Van Vliet asked if the wall sign would be removed. Mr. Wachs stated that the applicant would like to have both signs. Mr. Smith commented that there are two palm trees in the area of the proposed monument sign. Spencer Knight has okayed the relocation of one of the palms. The second palm may have to come out as well, but that one has not been addressed at this point GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 6 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES in time. There is other existing landscaping in this area. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he doesn't see the need for another sign for this business. Mr. Wachs stated that Open System MRI, which is next door, has a monument sign that's very visible from the street. Mr. Smith stated that the proposed monument sign will be slightly closer to the street. Commissioner Van Vliet asked what the City's policy is for monument signs. Mr. Smith stated that the City allows one monument sign per building and this would meet that criteria. Commissioner Hanson asked to have the internet address removed from the proposed monument sign and drop it down so that it has a 6" or 8" high base. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the word "Dentistry" looks really packed on there and it's too big. Mr. Smith stated that code has not addressed internet addresses on signage, but the City does prohibit phone numbers on signs. Therefore, Commission could determine that internet addresses fall into that category. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that it's redundant to have a wall sign and a monument sign. Mr. Wachs stated that there are two other businesses on this street who have two signs each. Commissioner Gregory asked the Commission if the sign could be approved with the understanding that the existing wall sign be deleted. Commissioner Vuksic agreed with this proposal. Mr. Smith stated that we could give the applicant the alternative of having either the freestanding sign or the wall sign. Commissioner Hanson suggested a motion of approval of the freestanding sign subject to the removal of the internet address with an 8" base. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the whole sign should have to be resubmitted. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the word "Dentistry" should be smaller so that it's proportional to the sign. Commissioner Gregory asked for comments on the internal illumination of the sign. Commissioner O'Donnell and Commission Hanson stated that the illumination is fine. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he would like to be certain that it's not too bright at night. Commissioner Gregory asked if instead of denying the sign, could it be continued with the concerns expressed by the Commission. Mr. Wachs stated that the lettering for the word "Dentistry" are approximately 12". Commissioner Vuksic suggested G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 7 **1001 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES using a 8" or 10" letter. Commissioner Hanson commented that the letter style on the building should be used on the monument sign. Commissioner O'Donnell preferred that the wall sign remain. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that there is some strong sentiment by some members of this commission that they prefer the existing signage that's on the building. If this comes back for a monument sign, then there will be critical review of the monument sign. Action: Commissioner Vuksic moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell to deny the request because he doesn't understand why someone needs the same sign on a monument and a wall sign right behind it. Perhaps this has happened in the past, but we need to set a new precedent for that and use one or the other. Commissioner Vuksic amended his motion and moved to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) choose either a monument sign or a wall sign, (2) internet address may not be used on signage, (3) put monument sign on 8" base, (4) reduce letter size of "Dentistry", and (5) use similar font as letterhead on signage. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hanson and carried 7-0. 7. CASE NO.: APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): JERRY BEAUVAIS for TRISH MOHR, 74-041 El Cortez Way NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Approval of addition to guest house. LOCATION: 74-041 El Cortez Way ZONE: R-1 Mr. Drell stated that the applicant is asking for approval of an addition to an existing guest house. The guest house physically meets all the ordinance requirements for a guest house. The reason why it's being presented to the ARC is because there's some potential in the future that this guest house might be converted to a second unit. Second units will be reviewed by the ARC under our new proposed second unit ordinance. In anticipation of that, we are having you review it now even though technically it is a purely permitted activity. The commissioners were shown pictures of the empty space and the adjacent property, G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 8 �Nlw' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES which has a detached accessory building. The applicant originally had wanted at 15' roof, but has lowered it to 12'. The setback is at the minimum 5'. The existing building has a 3'/2 ' setback, but the new building will be set back at the 5' minimum setback. Where a building is encroaching into the required rear yard there is a 1:1 slope. Within a lot there is a building envelope defined by the required setbacks where you can build your main house limited by the coverage, which is 30%-50%. Under our detached accessory structure ordinance, you're allowed to actually build your detached building in a required yard. The proposed addition to the guest house is being built within the area which they are entitled to build. Within the envelope of the main structure you're subject to the development standards of the main structure. Mr. Drell asked the Commission if they're satisfied with the design. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if this is to be considered as a separate structure or as part of the existing structure. Mr. Drell stated that he wants the ARC to look at this as an addition to an existing guest house. Commissioner Van Vliet asked how it can be approved if it only has a 3' setback. Mr. Drell stated that the existing guest house is legal nonconforming. The applicant is allowed to maintain the 3' setback under the legal nonconforming ordinance. All new development has to be conforming. Therefore, the addition is setback 5' to comply with the current required setbacks. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that based on two units on the lot, if this guest house becomes a second unit then the setbacks would comply with the current rules. If it's approved as a guest house it would still meet the physical development standards of the proposed second unit ordinance. Commissioner Gregory stated that we're looking at an addition to an existing guest. This is clearly a one-of-a-kind situation and then when the next one comes along, the ARC will look at that. There's no blanket generic endorsement. The ARC is looking at this particular project only. Mr. Drell stated that if this guest house is ever converted to a second unit, in the new law that governs second units a great deal of discretionary control is being taken away from the City with the exception of design review. One of the discussions is that there may be second units, but we are going to be reviewing them and being rigorous in terms of design review and our single family standards are going to be maintained in terms of physical architectural design review. After July 1, 2003, second units will not go to public hearing anymore. Architectural review will be the greatest extent of review of these projects. Even though the proposed guest house addition is not a G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 9 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES second unit, he wants it to be built to the satisfaction of the commission so that if and when it comes back as a second unit that it would be approvable. This should be looked at as an addition to the existing guest house. Commissioner Hanson asked Mr. Beauvais why he wouldn't put the flat roof element around the existing roof. Mr. Beauvais stated that the architecture that he's going for is old Italian Tuscany and Mediterranean which is a desert environment type of architecture. This architecture will be highly detailed so that it looks like a true Mediterranean building. Commissioner Hanson asked about the roof material on the shed roof. Mr. Beauvais stated that the only part of the roof that is visible are the edges. The shed is not high enough so that you can actually see the roof. What you can see is the edges so for the sake of trying to save money, he was going to do a rolled roofing with clay roof tiles around the edge because that's all you will see. If the ARC requires that the whole roof be done in tiles, then he will do that. Nobody would ever see them unless they were in an airplane or stand on a roof. Typically the central building is tall and the original drawing showed a roof height of 14' and Mr. Drell commented that 14' for this neighborhood is a little bit high. The houses in this area are 10'-12' at their highest. Therefore, he brought the roof height down to 12' to make it more reasonable. In the Mediterranean style there is a shed roof coming into the main house. He intends to put in a lot of landscaping. You can create a wonderful space by using landscaping correctly. Commissioner Hanson commented that it would look beautiful with a tile roof. Commissioner Vuksic stated that the roof would be visible from the neighboring houses. Mr. Beauvais stated that he didn't look at the roof from all angles because the neighbors have a pit bull in their backyard and he couldn't get back there. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he would like to see the roof height at 13'. Mr. Beauvais stated that he wanted to bring the roof in at 14' because typically Italian architecture soars. Mr. Drell suggested a roof height of 12'6". Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he would like the roof height to be 13'. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's helpful to bring in plans that show what he intends to do. The plans that have been submitted don't show what he intends to do. Mr. Beauvais stated that he didn't know that he was going to be added to the agenda so he wasn't prepared. Commissioner Vuksic stated that in the future he should bring in correct G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 10 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES plans. Mr. Drell commented that he was added to the agenda because the next ARC meeting has been cancelled due to the holidays and the next meeting won't be until January 14, 2002. Mr. Beauvais stated that he won't show up at an ARC without complete plans. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for approval subject to (1) lower roof to 13', and (2) use clay tile on the roof. Motion carried 7-0. B. Preliminary Plans 1. CASE NO.: CUP 85-02 Amendment #2 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN BERNARDINO, 1450 N. "D" Street, San Bernardino, CA 92405 HOLT ARCHITECTS, TIMOTHY HOLT, 41-555 Cook Street, Palm Desert, CA 92211 NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of addition to existing Sacred Heart School. LOCATION: 43-775 Deep Canyon Road, Sacred Heart Church ZONE: R-1 Action: Commissioner Van Vliet moved, seconded by Commissioner Lingle for approval by minute motion subject to approval by Landscape Manager. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 with Commissioner Hanson abstaining. 2. CASE NO.: PP 02-21 APPLICANT (AND ADDRESS): CITY OF PALM DESERT, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260 CRAIG PEARSON, PEARSON ARCHITECTS, INC., 74-040 Highway 111, Suite 232, Palm Desert, CA 92260 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES, INC., 800 N. Haven Avenue, Suite 300, Ontario, CA 91764 G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdoos\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 11 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Preliminary approval of a 3.3 acre expansion to the City's corporation yard including a 19,398 square foot structure and ancillary facility yard. LOCATION: 74-075 42"d Avenue ZONE: SI Mr. Smith introduced Armando Rodriguez from the Public Works Department. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they are proposing a 3.3 acre expansion to the corporation yard to incorporate a new building which is approximately 14,000 square feet, a covered car port for the fuel station, a covered wash-down facility, trash bin disposal, material bins and covered parking. The exterior of the new building will consist of a split-face material on the bottom portion, a smoother finish with a different color tone and a rougher texture on the top portion of the building, which will give it three different distinct textures and colors to break up the mass of the building. At the existing corporation yard there is a covered, architectural feature which they will tie into both buildings. They are going to paint the existing building to match the proposed building. They are going to install glass block windows to continue to break up the mass of the building. The highest point of the building is 24' in height. All the mechanical and air conditioning units are hidden from view from the street. The landscaping will match the existing landscaping. Mr. Rodriguez is working with the Landscape Manager, Spencer Knight, in order to finalize the layout of the landscaping. In between the old building and the new building is a patio where the workers have lunch and this area will be landscaped. Commissioner Van Vliet asked the width of the perimeter landscape areas. Mr. Rodriguez stated that currently they are not proposing any landscaping next to the carports. The Hovley Gardens Apartments have trees planted or will be planted along the entire wall. The corp yard is planning to utilize covered parking to provide shade. Commissioner Lopez commented that there are two-story buildings located on the other side of the wall that will probably look down into the corp yard until the trees get bigger. Will there be any proposed planting in small pockets in the yard? Mr. Rodriguez stated that once Hovley Gardens has mature trees, there will be adequate screening. Commissioner Hanson asked when the trees will be mature? They probably won't be mature for many years. Mr. Rodriguez stated that it might be a couple of years. Commissioner Hanson commented that it could take ten or twenty years. G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 12 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Rodriguez stated that the metallic guard rail is next to a ramp that semis will back into. Commissioner Hanson asked what the distance is between the Hovley Garden Apartments and the corporation yard. Commissioner Lingle stated that routinely people bring in plans for buildings and the ARC has consistently looked at the architecture and said that it lacks very specific elements and we should do more and yet our conversation thus far has been centered around hiding this building with landscaping. Just because it's a city project doesn't mean that we should look at it in a different way. This proposal is not very attractive. He's not suggesting that anything in the corporation yard needs to be attractive but he is suggesting that the ARC should use a similar standard that they use for everybody else. Commissioner Hanson stated that they were trying to ascertain who can actually see it, if anybody. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that Commissioner Lingle's point is well taken. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that there are no trees proposed on the corporation yard site and there's no planting area available. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they are relying on the trees at Hovley Gardens for screening. Commissioner Hanson stated that she's concerned about the two-story townhouses looking down into the yard. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they could also see inside the bins at the yard. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the ARC should keep in mind that most of the area is industrial. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it is except for right next door. Commissioner Gregory commented that he looked at the landscape plans for Hovley Gardens and the trees are very heavily planted, which appears to be designed to help mitigate this view possibility. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if there are any exhibits of the existing building at the corporation yard. Mr. Rodriguez stated that there are no exhibits for display. Commissioner Hanson stated that they haven't taken enough care in screening the corporation yard from the neighbors and they're relying on somebody else's landscaping, which is not sufficient. The building itself is lacking in architectural detail, which we require. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they are relying on another city owned project. It's only a temporary nuisance that they will not have it screened. It is heavily landscaped and within a couple of years the trees will screen this area. Commissioner Hanson stated that it'll be ten years before the trees are G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 13 4r" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES big enough to screen the corporation yard building. That's not temporary. How many people are going to live in those units in ten years? Mr. Rodriguez stated that he was thinking more like two or three years. Commissioner Hanson stated that when there are commercial buildings like the one proposed, whether they're in an industrial zone or not, we ask that there's architectural detail. The materials are beautiful, but the building itself is a box. This is one thing.that the ARC really tries to get away from on all of these buildings. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the reason why they are proposing a "box" is because of the functions inside the building. As the city grows, they have to maximize the area inside and the most efficient shape is a box. Commissioner Hanson stated that there are things that can be added to make it not so box- like. Mr. Rodriguez stated that they were trying to break up the mass and trying to add some architectural features, such as the shade structure, different bands of colors and textures and glass block. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they're all on one plane so they don't really achieve that much. Mr. Rodriguez stated that when light hits the block, it does reflect different shades. Commissioner Vuksic stated that it's such a large building and it needs more architecture. It's very tall and large. Commissioner Vuksic concurred with Commissioner Hanson and stated that it can be a box, but it needs a little more application to it to help break down that mass rather than just rely on changes in textures. Commissioner Vuksic invited Craig Pearson, President of Pearson Architects, to speak to the commission regarding the process and architecture. Mr. Pearson stated that he started this project with the City over one year ago with input from many of the City employees in regards to the programming. Tom Bassler has certain requirements in this facility to make it operate efficiently for the City. They have an existing 7,000 square foot building, which is a tilt-up building and has been retrofitted with some steel and also extensive metal trellis work that's part of the architecture. He is proposing adding elements to tie the two buildings together. It's steel work welded with mesh, but it is an important element to tie the two buildings together. The goal was to get 14,000 square feet on ground level. They have circulation issues to deal with as well with semis coming in the yard. There is covered parking for the City's larger trucks. They have designed a recessed waste dumpster. There is a wash down area. There is a covered structure that's 22' high so accommodate a 36,000 pound parallelogram lift that will go there. There is a lower covered structure over the existing fueling area. There are 16' high roll-up doors that will be painted. The bottom 12' will be split face, which is what is used on the existing walls of the current G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 14 N%W ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES facility are made of. He is attempting to break up the facade but certain operational features, such as the doors, are essential to the operation of the storage areas. The upper level will be a lighter tan color. The existing tilt-up building will be painted to match the new building. Commissioner Vuksic suggested adding some dimension to the building by adding another layer, which would add planes and shadow. Mr. Pearson stated that this building was addressed from the utilitarian, functional standpoint. It is a maintenance facility and is providing a function for the city. Some shades and shadows might be nice to have, but they would also get in the way of operations. They have fork lifts and vehicles in this area and they are trying to make the building as durable as possible, which is why they chose split face for the bottom. Commissioner Gregory stated that they would require any applicant to use more architecture. The applicant is forcing their next-door- neighbors to provide all of the screening for them. Tom Bassler stated that the City purchased the property for Hovley Gardens and the yard expansion. The yard should have received a larger piece of property. The problem is that Hovley Gardens started their project first. If the yard had more property, they could've added heavy landscaping. However, they only got a small amount of property to store their equipment and for all of their facilities. When they're driving trucks with trailers attached, they have to have room to move for safety reasons. They did reposition some of the storage bins, which are now pushed up against the wall on the west side. Prior to that, they were on the east side of the facility so they would be visible from Hovley Gardens. They're going to try to recess the dumpsters to reduce the visual impact. He's sympathetic to the people who are going to be living at the Hovley Garden Apartments. If somebody had some forethought, they wouldn't have built two-story townhomes next to the corporation yard. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't feel comfortable making a recommendation to approve a project that allows lesser standards than we would apply to anybody else. Commissioner Lopez asked about security in the yard and wondered if there was going to be any lighting at night. Also, there is the noise factor with the trucks coming in and out of the yard in the early morning hours. The trees won't block the noise from the residents. There will be kids living next to a facility where security consists of a 6' wall. He was wondering if this will be enough security. Mr. Bassler stated that lighting will be minimal and they may have motion lights installed. In the existing facility there is a perimeter infrared beam, but because of the complexity of this new project they are going to have to eliminate G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 15 M ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES that. Security is still an issue that they're addressing, but it won't be lit up a night. There may be some subtle lighting on the building over an entranceway. During the summertime, the normal work hours are from 6:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m. There will be activity early in the morning. The only thing that's buffering the current activity from the apartments is the vacant lot. The activity is going to continue at this particular level. More thought should have been given when Hovley Gardens was planned and designed. The Redevelopment Agency knew that we were going to expand the maintenance facility. Commissioner Lingle stated that the task of the commissioners is one of architecture. The ARC has to be credible and consistent with the way they deal with everyone in this community. It would be very unfair if they did anything different in this regard. It is a corporation yard, but at the same time they have to be ever mindful of the fact that as people move through the development, there will be a lot of residents who are going to live there over the years. If he was a resident, he would want to know that everything was done to make certain that he enjoys the same quality of life as everyone else. It is a matter of requirement for the ARC and it is their responsibility. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is going to be a major undertaking and it would be the City's responsibility to mitigate the problems associated with noise and not the responsibility of the residents. Maybe the site plan needs to have some more consideration. The truck circulation comes in and around the residential area. Maybe the building could be located in a different place. If the building had more architecture, perhaps it could be located closer to the street to showcase the building and put some of the other functions further to the rear. The circulation could be relocated away from the residential area. Mr. Bassler stated that one building, fuel area and storage facilities all already in place. The new building will be the main storage area for all the City records. They looked at a lot of different situations. At one time, they had covered parking along the west, south and east side. Now everything has been moved back, but he could relocate all the equipment on the east and south side. It would be visible and not shaded. His predecessor started designing this project years ago. Commissioner O'Donnell urged the applicant to seriously reconsider the site planning on this project. With that, they might be able to solve some of the other problems at the same time. Mr. Rodriguez stated that the fuel station and one building is existing. If the proposed building is moved toward the street, it will be closer to the residents. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the fuel station can be GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 16 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES moved. Mr. Bassler stated that they have above ground tanks, but there's underground piping. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that this could be worked out. Commissioner Hanson stated that she hears everything that the applicant is saying and they understand, but every person who comes to the ARC to present an idea or a plan to them has all the same concerns and they all have issues of why they can't do something but there are ways to do things even though they may be a little bit harder. They may have to sacrifice one thing to get something else. The ARC hasn't had a lot of time to study the plans, but these are serious issues that they require from every other person who comes to the ARC. Mr. Pearson asked about the extent of the architecture, which the ARC would like to see. He asked the ARC how they thought that this plan could be improved with what is already existing. There are a lot of tilt- up buildings in this area and a lot of industrial buildings. There are also block buildings in this area. Mr. Bassler stated that there is existing industrial to the south that Hovley Gardens is already overlooking. Our project is just one little corner. Commissioner Lingle stated that those projects aren't in front of them and everyone that comes before this commission is important to them. They can only influence those that they have the opportunity to influence. It's difficult because they respect what the applicant is trying to do. He would be interested to hear what Commissioner Vuksic has to say regarding the architecture. Commissioner Vuksic stated that what the ARC has been consistent about is when there's an opportunity to do a better piece to an existing project they would like to see them do that instead of repeating the same bad architecture. A simple example is that of the exposed roof drains all over the proposed building. The applicant will probably say that this is because the other building has exposed roof drains. It doesn't mean that this one can't clean that up and at least this piece will look a little better. The other way to look at it is that regardless of the other buildings in this area, here's a piece that needs a thoughtful look at how it's composition is working. He would be happy to hear the applicant explain why the building was designed this way but so far he hasn't heard that yet. Mr. Pearson stated that he didn't know that the ARC wanted to get into that aspect of it. Commissioner Vuksic stated that he doesn't need to know how the interior would be utilized but felt that there is no convincing reason why this is just a 24' sheer face other than that it's very economical to do that. It can remain economical, but there needs to be another layer. Mr. Pearson stated that he's used the covered lattice trellis work to help break up the sheer face. He has doors that are recessed 12" from the face and vertically he's used a composition of materials. He wasn't sure if they added a 6' eyebrow G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 17 vim'' ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES and the trucks would have to back under it if it would work because it is tight in some of these areas. Commissioner Gregory commented that he's concerned about softening the view from the street. If you look at the landscaping from the front, there's approximately 4' of planter is all that's there. On any other project it would be over 20' deep. They would have so much more opportunity to screen the view into the development off a city street if they had a deeper setback off the street for planting. The current proposal is very narrow. There is also some opportunity inside the corporation yard. They could create a planter inside the yard, not to make it pretty inside, but to provide an opportunity for more trees inside to give the illusion of more depth. There are ways to "have their cake and eat it too". They might be able to meet the ARC's concerns without giving up a lot of the interior functioning space, but that hasn't been looked at. Action: Commissioner Hanson moved, seconded by Commissioner O'Donnell to continue the request to allow the applicant to (1) add architectural detail, (2) add dimension, i.e. another layer to add planes and shadow, (3) look at modifying site plan to move truck and machinery noise away from the residential units to the west, (4) further consideration of site plan; possibly relocate building closer to street, (5) eliminate exposed roof drains, (6) use landscaping to soften view from street and neighbors, which could be possible if they had a deeper setback from the street, and (7) create planters inside wall to give illusion of more depth. Motion carried 7-0. C. Miscellaneous 1. Discussion Item: Freedom Park Mr. Winklepleck stated that the working drawings are not done yet. The Commission was shown plans for a new 34-acre park located on Country Club and Tamarisk Row. The CV Recreation and Park District main office and child care center will be located on this site and will occupy a two-story building. Craig Pearson, President of Pearson Architects, was present to answer questions. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the concept for this park was developed after the 9/1land the City Council named it Freedom Park. The direction was to develop a concept that lended itself to freedom and David Evans and Associates and the architect came up with the idea of pulling some iconic figures from Washington, D.C. and see how we can use them in and amongst the park. They didn't want it to look like G:Planning0onna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 18 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES Disneyland or Vegas or too "over-the-top". They're trying to use native colors and incorporating them as much as possible so that it resembles, but doesn't necessarily copy the originals in Washington, D.C. Mr. Pearson stated that the structures will be made of precast concrete so that it will be durable. The picnic shelters will have some sort of dome made of fiberglass, similar to the dome at Desert Crossing. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that they don't want it to look like Desert Crossing. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the center icon at the entrance will lead people past an interactive fountain that the City purchased several years ago. The idea is to recreate the reflecting pools in Washington, D.C. Commissioner Lingle suggested grass infields regardless of the maintenance costs. Also, basketball is the #1 game among young kids. There should be four full basketball courts. Mr. Winklepleck stated that they are proposing two sand volleyball courts and two basketball courts. The City has as much use on the volleyball courts as they do on the basketball courts. Commissioner Lingle stated that the City doesn't have enough basketball courts to put kids on right now. We are grossly at a disadvantage with other communities because we haven't used our space well. If you've ever been to the soccer park, you can't park there. Even on Friday evenings, the fields are full. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the CV Recreation & Park building for child care and offices will be located approximately 20'-30' off the industrial property line and about 400' from Country Club. The building height is 31'. Commissioner O'Donnell commented that he likes the building. Mr. Winklepleck stated that there are three entry areas. The first entry goes up to the main pavilion which will be a covered multi-functional piece where there could be temporary skate facilities, BBQ's, dances, etc... The other two entry statements will go toward the sidewalk areas. Each location will have an informational kiosk which will be developed in conjunction with Art in Public Places and the architect. There will be historical references. Desert Sands Unified School District is building an elementary school next to the park so we're trying to add some historical/educational element to the park that they can use as well as the general public. Each kiosk may have a statement and at the bottom have a question. When you go to the next kiosk, you will find the answer. The idea is to provide some type of architectural statement to these kiosks. There will also be picnic pavilions and a concession building, which is roughly based on Ebbot's Field to provide some historical significance. Commissioner Lingle asked if there will be restroom facilities in the concession building. Mr. Winklepleck GRanning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 19 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES commented that there will be restrooms and storage. Commissioner Lingle stated that one of the things that is advantageous to parents is to have boys and girls entrances on the same side so the parent can stand out front and not have to leave and run the risk of not capturing their child. Mr. Pearson stated that right now the restrooms are separated by storage areas so they can easily make the change. There will be lit tennis, basketball and volleyball courts. Commissioner Lingle asked about the dugouts at the baseball fields. One of the biggest errors we made at the Civic Center Park is that we didn't provide for shading of the dugouts for the kids, which is a problem. Also, he wanted to know what type of fencing is going to be used relative to foul balls. That's a problem as well. He suggested making the dugouts subterranean because it's cooler and it makes a lot of difference during the summer months. We're playing baseball all year now. The dugouts could be 2'-3' in depth. Give some thought to those things that are a matter of function as well. It would mean a lot to the parents and kids. Mr. Winklepleck stated that he wanted to make this presentation to the ARC to see if there are any major red flags architecturally. Commissioner Hanson asked what the connection is between the building and the CV Recreation & Park building. Mr. Pearson stated that it's "prairie architecture" by Frank Lloyd Wright, tying it into freedom and innovative thinking. This architecture is good for desert use with wide overhangs. This type of architecture is definitely not part of the Washington, D.C. theme. Ebbot's Field is also a take-off of another part of freedom. Commissioner Van Vliet commented that he doesn't understand the architecture. He wondered if the City Council has given him direction towards the Washington, D.C. theme. Mr. Winklepleck stated that there was direction to come up with something different than the standard park buildings and try to tie it in with the freedom concept. His first concern was not to make it look like Disneyland. Commissioner Van Vliet stated that it looks very theme park to him. He doesn't understand it and doesn't like it. Mr. Winklepleck stated that overall it's impacting but it's not going to stand above everything else at the park. It's still going to be a park and the majority of it is going to be green. Commissioner Van Vliet suggested enhancing it even more by doing something that ties in locally or a different type of architecture. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the direction was to go toward the freedom theme. Short of having everything red, white and blue, they've tried to come up with something that would bridge the gap between the two. The first suggestion was to put a tank in the park. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 20 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Vuksic commented on the concession building. He sees the CV Recreation & Park building and the concession building as the buildings and everything else are monuments. It seems like it makes sense to have the two buildings tie into together architecturally. Mr. Pearson stated that the concession building was supposed to be similar to 1913 Ebbot's Field in Brooklyn. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if we're talking about the concept of freedom, the concession building ties into baseball. There is some confusion here between all the themes, even with the reflecting pool. Commissioner Hanson commented that it's going to come off "Disneylandish". The concept of freedom is a good one, but freedom doesn't necessarily relate to buildings or structures. Freedom has more to do with events and people, as opposed to buildings. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that this is not the place to teach. Commissioner Hanson stated that she doesn't think that people are going to get it. There's not enough of the park dedicated to the theme to make it seem like what it's supposed to be. Commissioner O'Donnell concurred. Commissioner Lingle asked if the City Council had input into the park. Mr. Winklepleck stated that the subcommittee had input into the project. Commissioner Lingle wondered why we couldn't accomplish something that has the ability to market the theme but have architecture that isn't quite so apparent. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that if they take it to the extreme and use classical elements, either you do them to the scale that they're intended or they're going to look really silly and then they're only thin facades and aren't really true buildings. They're going to look more like ruins than the actual structure. Mr. Pearson did not agree. If you take the Jefferson Memorial and try to scale it down, it will look Disneyland. What he's trying to do is get an image and not say that it's the Jefferson Memorial, but it will have the flavor to it that makes you think about something that may relate to liberty and freedom. Commissioner Hanson commented that she doesn't think that people are that smart. Mr. Winklepleck stated that that's why they have plaques. Commissioner Lingle suggested that maybe in the learning kiosks we really exemplify the freedom theme. Commissioner Hanson suggested having a parade of presidents or great people with statues and a story behind them. Unless you've studied architecture, people don't get it and if they've never been to Washington, D.C. they don't know what those buildings mean. People go to parks to play baseball and basketball. Mr. Pearson stated that the reason why they added the historical kiosks is to create a question and then follow Paul Revere's footprints to the answer. Commissioner Hanson suggested actually seeing the person and following them so that it actually becomes more about people, places and events, as opposed to buildings. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 21 'wd ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES Commissioner Lingle suggested to speaking to particular events with the freedom bell and Paul Revere and maybe move somewhere through history and capture some things that are from the era that are fairly recognizable. Commissioner O'Donnell agreed with Commissioner Vuksic. He immediately liked the CV Recreation & Park building. Most people won't know that it's a shade or two away from Frank Lloyd Wright. What they'll like about it is that it's nice architecture and it's probably going to function for the intended use once it's finished. Probably the Ebbot's Field concession stand and the CV Rec & Park building are far enough away from each other that they would probably work. The concession building should be more like a pavilion. Everything in between, he's having difficulty with. The whole classical theme of the architecture and representing liberty and freedom just don't work. Mr. Winklepleck clarified that the problem was with the entry statements and the pavilions. The information kiosks are fine. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that there's a lot that can happen between the entry and maybe the reflecting pool can work. He asked how deep the pool is. Mr. Winklepleck stated that it's a combination reflecting pool / interactive fountain which is only 3"- 4" in depth. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that maybe something on either side of the pool could be added. Commissioner Hanson suggested a progression of our freedoms. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that not too many people are going to stop at the entry. They're going to follow the water course all the way down to the playing fields. Commissioner Lingle commented that the layout is nice. Commissioner O'Donnell agreed. Commissioner Lopez commented that sometimes when people drop kids off people will stop and cars will back up. It looks like a waiting area has been designed but an area for cars to stack should be addressed. Mr. Winklepleck stated that they've looked at that really closely because of the elementary school. The first thing that they did was to put the child care facility as far away from the entry to the school as possible since they'll basically be dropping kids off at the day care at the same time that the kids are getting to school. The two times that they'll have issues is at the drop off time in the morning and then pick up in the afternoon. There is a separate bus and teacher area. Commissioner Lingle stated that our traffic plans in and around schools have been disasters, particularly at Carter Elementary School which is relatively new. Mr. Winklepleck stated that he's seen parents parked out on the street at Amelia Earhart School when the parking lot is practically empty. Commissioner Lingle stated that what was done at G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES the soccer parks is great with the fence and walkways at strategic locations. 2. Discussion Item: University Village urban design. Mr. Drell made a presentation of the University Village Concept to the Commission for discussion purposes. This was known as the Desert Wells project in the Frank Sinatra, Cook Street, Portola, Shephard Lane area. The City is now in escrow (or closed) on a piece of property for what is presumed to be Desert Willow 3 golf course. The reason why we're going to build another golf course is because if and when we ever consummate all the deals with the hotels at Desert Willow, they will consume all the prime golf rounds. Commissioner Gregory asked how this will benefit taxpayers if they don't play golf. Mr. Drell stated that the City gets 10% of the gross of hotel revenue. We make money whether they make money or not. The City wants to ensure that the public continues to get access to Desert Willow golf courses. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the City is giving up prime space for more housing. We need more housing, not more golf courses. Mr. Drell stated that the goal of the rest of the project is to provide housing at a general intensity twice that on average as the rest of the City. Our goal for the rest of the property is to have an average of about 8-10 units per acre. Our average traditionally in the City has been 3-4 units per acre. The proposed plan is to have discrete neighborhoods that interrelate to each other, as opposed to having walled neighborhoods. There is a proposed park that will interact with the neighborhood. They're dealing with some slope so they're going to put the park at the top of the hill. Frank Laulainen has taken the conceptual plan and has created the proposed plan. There is a potential school site on the property, but there is some controversy with the City Council over whether they want to allow Palm Springs School District to build a school here. Their desire was to build a magnet high school in this location with an association with the university. There will be a commercial development included in this area. The housing lots are small (3,600 square feet to 7,600 square feet). Commissioner Hanson asked how big the houses will be on these lots. Mr. Laulainen stated that depending on whether the houses are one story or two story they would vary from 1,500 square feet to 2,800 square feet. Commissioner Van Vliet asked why this would be such a high density area. Mr. Drell stated that it's because this is all the land we have left. Unfortunately, if you look at a map of what we've done to the City over the last twenty years, we've consumed it all with golf courses and this is the only piece of real estate we have left. This is actually medium density, but is high for the City. We've been very low in the past, which is why we have this problem. Commissioner O'Donnell asked why would we build another G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES golf course. Commissioner Hanson asked how this compares to another city. Mr. Drell stated that traditional single family homes prior to WW II were on lots of this size sixty years ago. The traditional single family neighborhood used to be 8 units per acre. This is adjacent to the new university. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the university community is going to demand high density residential and supporting services that are going to be nearby as well. It doesn't need another golf course. Mr. Laulainen stated that the proposed golf course started out as a link between the existing Desert Willow golf course. Mr. Drell stated that Orange County discovered that suddenly they're running out of land and their realization that maybe if they provide housing then people won't commute on the 91 freeway. The town of Brea has done a single family detached product between 7-10 units per acre. Mr. Drell has a CD-Rom with photographs that he presented to the Housing Commission and the General Plan Advisory Commission. One element that a lot of the homes have is rear-loaded garages with lanes behind the homes. Desert Rose is 7 units per acre. They have rear garages that are attached to the houses but they're set back 40' and some of the houses are almost 10' to the curb. There's a project in Brea called Artisan Walk that looks almost like a traditional single family neighborhood that's 7 units per acre. Commissioner O'Donnell asked how long it would take for all the infrastructure to be put in and for the area to be built out. Mr. Drell commented that within fifteen years, three quarters of it will be built out. As soon as the university starts looking like a "real" campus, then not only will it be attracting people in the area, but it will draw people from other areas. It may be slow for about 5-6 years at the university, but between 2007-2015 it will probably pick up. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he hopes that the City won't invest too much in the golf course so that in 50 years time they can bulldoze it down and fill the demand that will be needed there. He likes the medium density. Mr. Drell stated that there are apartments that are higher density relating to the commercial. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he likes the integration of all of it. Mr. Drell stated that there's the thought about making the park smaller and distributing some pieces of it amongst the different neighborhoods. There are arroyos with walking trails that connect the neighborhoods. Mr. Laulainen stated that they're looking at a terraced area with a sophisticated kind of architectural style that's horizontal so you don't have big boxes going up and down the hill. G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION DECEMBER 10, 2002 MINUTES Mr. Drell stated that there's thought of having a library or civic component where there could possibly be a police substation. Commissioner O'Donnell asked if any accommodations are being made for rapid transit, i.e. bus service. Mr. Drell stated that he has a meeting set up with Sun Line. Historically, to have a successful, efficient bus system you need at least 8 units per acre within 1/4-1/2 mile of a bus line so that you can get enough people and enough routes. The proposed plan includes the university, Costco, Wal*Mart, 5-6 million square feet of mixed industrial office along the freeway. Running a bus in this area should provide enough customers. Bus systems work best when you don't need a schedule. You know that if you walk up to a bus bench there will be a bus there within ten minutes. Commissioner O'Donnell asked about how to encourage people who make single car trips to use the bus service to go to Wal*Mart, for example. Mr. Drell stated that there will be a road that goes east-west. The goal is to get people within 1/4 mile to walk to the bus stop. Commissioner O'Donnell stated that the people who use the buses now are not the same people who are going to live in the university village area. He wanted to know how we're going to encourage the people who are going to live in this area to leave their cars in their garage and go out and take the bus. Mr. Drell stated that the students and faculty will ride the bus. In Santa Cruz, when you pay for your registration you got a bus pass. Commissioner O'Donnell suggested that when Mr. Drell meets with Sun Line he might recommend that new residents are given a free pass for a period of time so that they get used to using the bus. A rapid transit plan should be built into the proposed plan. Commissioner Hanson suggested using the Shopper Hopper for small trips to and from the university. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. STEVE SMITH PLANNING MANAGER G:Planning\Donna Quaiver\wpdocs\Agmin\AR021210.MIN 25